Talk:Booby Trap (episode)
Removed comments Removed the following: Nitpick- *There is in the engineering set a computer readout from the first year. It is noticeable by its brown interface controls and the LCARS number 40271. This may not be a continuity error as there could exist several in-universe reasons for this panel's use here. Unsure why this should be noted, since he just might have programmed it that way- *In order to summon the violinist in the beginning scene, Geordi snaps his fingers in a similar fashion to Q.--31dot 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Explanation? Can it be explained why the ship must go THROUGH the asteroid field to escape it? From the final shot of the torpedo firing, it seems like the Promelian ship is at the edge of the asteroid field. Why can't the same tactic they use to escape simply be used to turn around and leave? Is this explained and I've missed it? And yet when they are done escaping, they are right back in front of the Promelian ship prepared to torpedo it. Did they go to the other end of the asteroid field during the previous sequence? TheHYPO 22:02, November 9, 2009 (UTC) : The aceton assimilators absorb any energy the ship uses to create lethal radiation. This is why the Enterprise has to power down as much of the ship as possible. This is also why Picard manoeuvres the ship manually after a single thruster burst for inertia and then with minimal use of the thrusters to escape. To turn around and go back out would likely have been more complicated and used more energy than shooting forward. --PhoenixFlight 06:21, November 11, 2009 (UTC) Removed *At the beginning of the episode you can see a man wearing the old style uniform with the lower neck and yellow piping, he walks in front of Picard and Riker. Already noted elsewhere that the uniform's weren't completely phased out yet, and a nitpick. - 15:49, January 6, 2010 (UTC) *The model seen in the drafting room is shown with all three shuttlebay doors open (or missing). *The (Refit) silver painted model in the drafting room is an AMT/Ertl kit missing the model pieces for the saucer windows, and with the engines mounted on the pylons horizontally instead of vertically. It is not known if this configuration was deliberate, representing an engineering variant, or accidental on the part of the model maker. ::Removed as nitpicks.--31dot 10:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC) :::Sorry, I see nothing nitpicky in those comments, it's just a description of the models seen in the episode, something that makes perfect sense for the background section. --Jörg 12:47, May 10, 2010 (UTC) I would have to agree with Jörg, though the last sentence could be dropped since we don't know either way. - 12:52, May 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Discussion about the details of the models should go on the pages about the models, not the episodes the model is seen in, unless there is some discussion from a cast/crew member regarding this episode about them. In this case, the statements point out something odd about the models- which I believe falls under "Observations that, although not contradictions per se, suggest something out-of-place; irrelevant observations" from MA:NIT.--31dot 13:00, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Point taken. Do we have a page for that Galaxy class model, as I know the Connie is already covered. - 14:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't think there is one, although (absent someone creating one) the info could go on the Galaxy class page.--31dot 16:17, May 10, 2010 (UTC) :::Still, mentioning the appearance of the Enterprise models in the background section doesn't hurt. The TOS Enterprise is a nice nod to the original series and the Enterprise-D model is interesting, because the model kit was used on the show, similar to when other real life objects from the 20th century appear on the show. The model was only rarely seen and I think it is okay to mention the appearance on the episode page and the starship pages. --Jörg 16:41, May 10, 2010 (UTC) ::The Galaxy-class comment made no mention of it being a certain model or prop- I removed it due to the shuttlebay door nitpick.(OK, they're open, so what?) That is exactly the kind of trivial detail MA:NIT is designed to prevent. If there is a citation stating that it is a particular model, then I could see that being mentioned, without the statement about the shuttlebay doors. The Constitution also lacked a citation for its claim, although I removed it due to the attempt to explain the nacelles away(its's speculation) I could see the first sentence being restored if necessary with a citation, leaving off the second sentence.--31dot 17:40, May 10, 2010 (UTC) :::Seriously, what is wrong about "Drafting room 5 features both a model of a Constitution class and a Galaxy class starship, both made from AMT-Ertl model kits. It also features a third, yet to be identified model ship". The fact that dilithium crystals were also lying around would be trivial, IMHO. --Jörg 18:36, May 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Personally, I don't see the need of doing it, but if its not a nitpick there is no reason to remove it.--31dot 09:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC) Gravity I cannot believe that this small asteroid could accelerate the Enterprise gravitationally but not all the other asteroids which seem to be stationary. What am I missing from classical mechanics? :In the future please ask general questions at the Reference Desk; Article talk pages are meant to discuss article changes only. Thanks 31dot (talk) 15:51, June 7, 2015 (UTC)